I am transporting the goods from one state to another state. I am registered in my home state and not registered in destination state and i am not having any fixed establishment in the destination state. Am i also required to get myself registered in destination state. read section 22

whether e invoice is applicable if my supply is 100% exempt though my turnover is over 30 crore. refer rule 48 and it's notifications

Excess tax was wrongly paid vide GSTR 3B. whether refund of excess paid tax vide GSTR 3B can be claimed as refund after 3 years of payment of tax. read explanation to Section 54 which define refund. whether excess payment be construed as tax?

Excess tax was wrongly paid vide GSTR 3B. whether refund of excess paid tax vide GSTR 3B can be claimed as refund after 3 years of payment of tax. Read section 54 and Rule 89

whether state gst department can initiate the enquiry of the registered person whose jurisdiction lies with centre. Read section 6

credit note issued after 2 years whether eligible for adjustment in output tax liability? read section 34

credit note issued after 2 years whether eligible for adjustment in output tax liability?

whether itc can be denied to recipient if supplier has not paid the tax by reading Section 16(2) and rule 36

A search was conducted under section 67 and thereafter three summons were issued but tax payer did not appear since he might be arrested. what remedy tax payer is available?

department has issued a communication demanding only interest without mentioning any provisions of the law. is the communication maintainable?

the summary of DRC 01 has raised demand of IGST where as summary of order DRC 07 has raised a demand of CGST and SGST. can court treat this as defective since order cannot go beyond SCN

the nature of tax demanded by the proper officer is of CGST and SGST, however if the difference between GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B is seen the nature of tax is IGST. examine in the light of Section 49 of CGST Act and Section 17 and Section 18 of IGST Act whether this demand can be sustained?

if tax payer is not given option to pay penalty @ 15% without issuance of DRC 01A then penalty @ 15% becomes redundant. therefore DRC 01A may should be read as shall. examine now read section 74 and Rule 142A

Is it mandatory to issue DRC 01A to invoke Section 74? examine in the light of Section 74 that if DRC 01A is not issued the tax payer do not get the option to pay penalty @ 15% and can may be read as shall? also think like this that if DRC 01 is issued tax payer shall penalty @ 25%. and if suddenly DRC 01 comes without prior intimation then tax payer loses the option to pay penalty @ 15%. therefore may can be read as shall? what do you think

Is it mandatory to issue DRC 01A to invoke Section 74? examine in the light of Section 74 that if DRC 01A is not issued the tax payer do not get the option to pay penalty @ 15% and can may be read as shall?

Is it mandatory to issue DRC 01A to invoke Section 74?

whether whats app chat can be admissible as an incrimination material recovered during the search operation under section 67 against the tax payer. in the absence of mobile phone as primary evidence.

whether a certificate under section 145 is mandatory for computer print out and in the absence thereof, the document cannot be read against the tax payer. is it correct.

There is an ECO who provides car pooling services. Car giver is a salaried class person and car rider can be any person. car rider pays say Rs .100 to ECO. ECO keeps Rs. 10 as a platform fees and remaining Rs. 90 is given to car giver. Now the department says that entire amount of Rs. 100 is taxable. analyse this transaction with respect to section 2(17) and Section 9(1) and Section 9(5) and section 7

Section 54 read with Rule 89(5), the officer is saying that due to excess purchase of stock only there is refund due to inverted duty structure and therefore denying it. we are satisfying all the conditions of section 54(3). examine this in the light of formular of calculating refund due to inverted duty structure

As per Section 54 read with Rule 89 department is denying refund under inverted duty structure saying that refund is not allowed since there is excess purchase of stock.